Article 23 Explained: India’s Approach to Banning Forced Labour

Topic 10: Article 23 of the Constitution of India

Forced labour is any kind of work or service wherein a person is coerced or forced to do against their will. Any kind of such labour is prohibited under the Indian laws. It takes away the dignity and freedom of a person, the freedom for which Indians have fought for over 150 years.

The rights against forced labour are enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution of India and protects its people from exploitation. Article 23 enshrines the prohibition of human trafficking, begging and any other form of forced labour. The Supreme Court has, in various judgments, held that forced labour strips one off of the dignity that every person is born with and is provided as such under the Constitution.

In a landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943, the Apex Court observed that the word “force” has a wider meaning. It includes physical force, legal force and other economic factors which forces a person to provide labour at a wage less than the minimum wage. Hence, if a person is forced to provide labour for less than the minimum wage, just because of poverty, want, destitution or hunger, it would be accounted for as forced labour. The Court also clarified the meaning of “all similar forms of forced labour” in Article 23. It said that not only begging but all forms of forced labour are prohibited. This means that it would not matter if a person is given remuneration or not as long as he is forced to supply labour against his will. This is essential so as to ensure that the employer does not take advantage of the helpless conditions of the people in India, being forced into labour.

At least minimum wages should be paid to an employee working in an organisation as a fundamental right and anything less than that would be nothing but an act amounting to forceful labour and begging.

Additionally, in the case of Deena vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SCC 1155, the Court held that a prisoner being forced to work in a jail without providing any remuneration is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution, as even the prisoners are entitled to receive reasonable wages for their labour. However, even where labour is forced upon a person, irrespective whether the person is being paid minimum wages or higher than that, Article 23 will be violated. Any amount of remuneration paid to a person will be immaterial if labour is forced upon him.

Article 23(2) however, is an exception to this exploitation. Article 23 (2) does not prevent the state from imposing compulsory services for public purposes. Bbut in doing so, the state shall not make any discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, class or any of them. Therefore, in the matter of Dulal Samanta vs D.M. Howrah, the Apex Court held that the special notice received by a person for his appointment as a police officer for a period of 3 months is not violative of Article 23.

Therefore, any form of forced labour is looked down upon and highly discourages and prevents a person from living his life with liberty and freedom. If all employers are mindful of the basic human rights in India, and the dignity each and every person possesses, we can definitely strive for an equal and a much better India.

This article was written by Aditi Hambarde attorney at Vis Legis Law Practice, Advocates .